It looks like you are using an ad blocker. That's okay. Who doesn't? But without advertising revenue, we can't keep making this site awesome. Click the link below for instructions on disabling adblock.
Welcome to the Newschoolers forums! You may read the forums as a guest, however you must be a registered member to post.
Register to become a member today!
Difference between "core" and "successful" companies?
Core companies are the ones just selling tshirts, sunglasses, stickers, etc on the forums and in parking lots. Successful companies are anyone selling their products from a retail store, online store, or actually manufacturing anything themselves.
Real ski companies build skis in their own factories/workshops and don't build for others. Successful ones have been doing it for a long time and are recognized as leading edge or trendsetters by peers.
Never thought about it, but if a retail shop started building skis for customers, that's core, but once they start white labelling their skis, that's selling out the brand.
I think it's worth separating brands from ski suppliers who actually build the skis. Neither are core to me, although both can be successful.
I don't know enough about the industry to really analyze further.
For snowboarding, Burton is a core brand. Jake Burton has been there since inception and claims to have invented the snowboard and has held CEO spot for a few years too. They have an R&D factory "Craig's" named after Craig Kelly. Skiing is a lot older than snowboarding. Not sure if there is an equivalent brand in it today like Burton.. ON3P is core and run their own factory but it's much younger than a brand like Armada, but which one is more successful...?
Magic_CarveReal ski companies build skis in their own factories/workshops and don't build for others. Successful ones have been doing it for a long time and are recognized as leading edge or trendsetters by peers.
Never thought about it, but if a retail shop started building skis for customers, that's core, but once they start white labelling their skis, that's selling out the brand.
I think it's worth separating brands from ski suppliers who actually build the skis. Neither are core to me, although both can be successful.
I don't know enough about the industry to really analyze further.
hmm, well I wouldn't go skiing at all if I couldn't use my skis. Well, I would but I think it'd feel quite empty. Beyond that, it's not a company and has no customers. I'm pretty sure it has a spirit beyond me, though - so core means staying true to that spirit. That Burton factory Craig's looks damn nice. I think they'd have the equipment to build skis with a 177 tail, but Burton is so core I'm not sure they'd consider making 2 skis(?) at once unless maybe Shaun White asked haha.
WinterStickI'm having a hard time trying to explain the difference between a brand or shop that is "core" one one that is just smaller or starting out.
What makes a brand or shop core? Just because they get successful, why are they all of a sudden no longer core?
Discuss.
I mean this discssion is kind of dumb, its all based on your personal perspective.
I think Dakine is a great example of a brand/company you can definitely consider "core", but also has been undeniably successful at what they do.
pbfan08I mean this discssion is kind of dumb, its all based on your personal perspective.
I think Dakine is a great example of a brand/company you can definitely consider "core", but also has been undeniably successful at what they do.
Maybe it is personal perspective. There is definitely a middle-ground here. Like Virtika, for example. Lesh is a skier. The company supports good skiers. They're heavily involved in the ski community. I'd say they're core as fuck. But they're made in China.Still a core company, but less so than if they had some local factory making the gear.
What I'm wondering most is, as a community trying to support core companies, are we really just penalizing other companies for growing?"
Magic_CarveFor snowboarding, Burton is a core brand. Jake Burton has been there since inception and claims to have invented the snowboard and has held CEO spot for a few years too. They have an R&D factory "Craig's" named after Craig Kelly. Skiing is a lot older than snowboarding. Not sure if there is an equivalent brand in it today like Burton.. ON3P is core and run their own factory but it's much younger than a brand like Armada, but which one is more successful...?
Idk. Burton def was a core brand but they sold out pretty hard imo. Haven't really liked burton products for the last 10 years or so. It's more about the gaper families than the riders. I guess not because a lot of pros still ride the stuff but they just went the wrong direction.
At the same time they have tons of loot and still do things like the stash parks(which are awesome) cool events, and probably have a mellow vibe at the factory.
They're def a successful company as far as this thread but I think they have some traits of core and some of the sellout type companies.
I mean it's bound to happen if you're making shit at the beginning of a sport that takes off and becomes huge. You're going to be one of the big players.
Also burton owns a bunch of different brands as as well.
theabortionatorIdk. Burton def was a core brand but they sold out pretty hard imo.
Idk either. 2nd and 3rd in Olympics are Burton riders (Ayumu and Taku.) Burton probably did really well in Japan in the 90s .. Snowboarding became huge there (still is?) and they bought out smaller competitors for whatever reason. You have to see if the founders' hearts are still in it. I wonder what other brands they own.
Magic_CarveIdk either. 2nd and 3rd in Olympics are Burton riders (Ayumu and Taku.) Burton probably did really well in Japan in the 90s .. Snowboarding became huge there (still is?) and they bought out smaller competitors for whatever reason. You have to see if the founders' hearts are still in it. I wonder what other brands they own.
Anon, RED, Analog, Foursquare and some other stuff. Probably 4 or 5 more.
theabortionatorAnon, RED, Analog, Foursquare and some other stuff. Probably 4 or 5 more.
Foursquare is no longer around, but they owned that along with Forum and Special Blend. To add to that list, they also own Gravis and Channel Islands (the surfboard company).
WinterStickFoursquare is no longer around, but they owned that along with Forum and Special Blend. To add to that list, they also own Gravis and Channel Islands (the surfboard company).
WinterStickFoursquare is no longer around, but they owned that along with Forum and Special Blend. To add to that list, they also own Gravis and Channel Islands (the surfboard company).
That's insane about Burton owning Gravis. I found the press release from 1998 and Jake started it (it wasn't acquired) because he and his colleagues found a shortfall in the market and the company had the resources to build the shoes they wanted.
I've always liked Gravis shoes...
They didn't call the the shoes Burton either. At the time there were Gravis joysticks around for PC and Playstation and I always wondered if the brands were the same. Also, was it a way to move into the Japanese market more easily (where Gravis shoes are still big today) ...with Gravis now an Asian only brand according to Burton.
I was thinking today about a Heartcarve shoe. It would have an earthing wire built into the sole and a side pouch for shungite (or other crystal) to mitigate emf pollution.
Earthing just means collecting free electons from the Earth by touching it. This reduces inflammation, and according to Dr. Stephen Sinatra, inflammation is a primary cause of heart disease.
"the real cause of heart disease is inflammation. It's not cholesterol like everybody believes. It's really inflammation"
...."He came to work as a young carpenter, and the foreman said to him, 'Hey buddy, you better take your shoes off, because if you come to work right now with those shoes on, you're going to be busted up in 10 years. Your joints are going to be aching. Your muscles are going to be aching. Everything's going to be aching.'"
So for me I know it's really hard to get grounded while skiing because the snow is so cold to walk or sit on. I think these shoes could really help people and their hearts.
I don't think a company's success makes or breaks the definition of core. To me a core company is one that is in touch with the community and caters accordingly. In this case a ski company that works to better the freeski community while putting out awesome content, product, and other types of events is a "core" company.
Taking Orage as an example. Awesome product. One of the first freeski specific outerwear companies. Just look at the people on board at Orage. The people working for them are skiers and are heavily involved in the community. Orage Masters for example is one of the coolest most unique events as well.
There's a difference between being successful and selling out. Core companies can be successful but success doesn't necessarily mean you sold out.
chief_queefI don't think a company's success makes or breaks the definition of core. To me a core company is one that is in touch with the community and caters accordingly. In this case a ski company that works to better the freeski community while putting out awesome content, product, and other types of events is a "core" company.
Taking Orage as an example. Awesome product. One of the first freeski specific outerwear companies. Just look at the people on board at Orage. The people working for them are skiers and are heavily involved in the community. Orage Masters for example is one of the coolest most unique events as well.
There's a difference between being successful and selling out. Core companies can be successful but success doesn't necessarily mean you sold out.
Magic_CarveFor snowboarding, Burton is a core brand. Jake Burton has been there since inception and claims to have invented the snowboard and has held CEO spot for a few years too. They have an R&D factory "Craig's" named after Craig Kelly. Skiing is a lot older than snowboarding. Not sure if there is an equivalent brand in it today like Burton.. ON3P is core and run their own factory but it's much younger than a brand like Armada, but which one is more successful...?
Fact is, if millions of people are buying a brands goods, they can't be making them out of their basement anymore. That makes them successful. However, a company can be core at any point. Depending on how they present themselves. What they do with their money, fame, and success. Do they stick to their roots, or do they sell out for corporate greed? Thats what defines core to me. You always got to remember where you came from, and who helped you get there, and stay true to it.
QuinnBestwickArmada is a perfect example of being a "core" company and being successful.
What innovation is Armada doing on the hardware side?
As far as I know they don't even own their own factory (which is weird for such an old company)... with Burton they can build and test out designs on a daily basis.
Right now I'm thinking about skis that are grounded - ie a wire runs from the edges to connect to one's body. You see that might not be successful (yet), but it is f_____ core.
Magic_CarveWhat innovation is Armada doing on the hardware side?
As far as I know they don't even own their own factory (which is weird for such an old company)... with Burton they can build and test out designs on a daily basis.
Right now I'm thinking about skis that are grounded - ie a wire runs from the edges to connect to one's body. You see that might not be successful (yet), but it is f_____ core.
Hopefully I'm not getting trolled but innovative and core are 2 completely separate things. "Core brands" are ones who design and market their products mainly for those who are experienced and deeply rooted in the sport. These brands don't go out of their way to make as much money as possible or appeal to the general public.
Burton is about as "un-core" as it gets at this point except for monster and redbull.
Dub post, but to respond to the thread, core and successfull are not mutually exclusive but core brands will tend to be less successful as the amount of experienced skiers, deeply rooted in the sport is not enough to make major profits for a company so they will generally have to shift their focus to beginners or those outside the sport to make large profits.
To me, a core company is one that is willing to innovate and try new ideas for the sake of its riders and customers instead of following market trends in an attempt to profit the most
and gtfo with Burton being core, Tom Simms is rolling in his grave
I suggest anyone claiming Burton is not core take a stroll around the Burlington HQ and factory, possible catch a tour. Everyone there is there because they love snowboarding 100%, they just happen to be professionals who are really good at their jobs too.
theabortionatorAnon, RED, Analog, Foursquare and some other stuff. Probably 4 or 5 more.
WinterStickFoursquare is no longer around, but they owned that along with Forum and Special Blend. To add to that list, they also own Gravis and Channel Islands (the surfboard company).
Forum(Special Blend/Foursquare) was never a Burton company. Their boards were produced in Slovenia in the Elan factory.
~~~~~~~~I suggest anyone claiming Burton is not core take a stroll around the Burlington HQ and factory, possible catch a tour. Everyone there is there because they love snowboarding 100%, they just happen to be professionals who are really good at their jobs too.
Burton is/isn't a core brand. They sell their middle/low end products and sale stock in mass-market stores like Sportchek. They had a few lines that were only available in "core" shops, and they were not sent to the clearing houses.
The shop I worked in during the '00s sold Burton and a few other snowbored lines. I always felt that Option/Drake/NFA was better than anything from VT, but we never got any A[K] or VIIs.
Too many things to try and quote in this thread and respond to so we'll try this.
For Saga core means you are closely tied to the end consumer that dedicates a large portion of their life to skiing. This means interacting with them at events, online, promoting the lifestyle they live, and backing the skiers that best represent what we like to do. To us, being a core ski company means you listen to the people who think about skiing 90% of the day, and make decisions based on them.
To say that to be a core ski brand you have to be small and only making hand made goods doesn't seem right. Yes those brands are core but we think the idea of a core company is more about the people involved, the goals, direction, and actions.
Someone used Burton as an example of a core snowboard brand, thats debatable. I would have suggested Volcom. They started as a snowboard clothing company and are now huge. But in snowboarding, skateboarding and surfing are still considered a core brand.
Saga.Too many things to try and quote in this thread and respond to so we'll try this.
For Saga core means you are closely tied to the end consumer that dedicates a large portion of their life to skiing. This means interacting with them at events, online, promoting the lifestyle they live, and backing the skiers that best represent what we like to do. To us, being a core ski company means you listen to the people who think about skiing 90% of the day, and make decisions based on them.
To say that to be a core ski brand you have to be small and only making hand made goods doesn't seem right. Yes those brands are core but we think the idea of a core company is more about the people involved, the goals, direction, and actions.
Someone used Burton as an example of a core snowboard brand, thats debatable. I would have suggested Volcom. They started as a snowboard clothing company and are now huge. But in snowboarding, skateboarding and surfing are still considered a core brand.
Saga.Too many things to try and quote in this thread and respond to so we'll try this.
For Saga core means you are closely tied to the end consumer that dedicates a large portion of their life to skiing. This means interacting with them at events, online, promoting the lifestyle they live, and backing the skiers that best represent what we like to do. To us, being a core ski company means you listen to the people who think about skiing 90% of the day, and make decisions based on them.
To say that to be a core ski brand you have to be small and only making hand made goods doesn't seem right. Yes those brands are core but we think the idea of a core company is more about the people involved, the goals, direction, and actions.
Someone used Burton as an example of a core snowboard brand, thats debatable. I would have suggested Volcom. They started as a snowboard clothing company and are now huge. But in snowboarding, skateboarding and surfing are still considered a core brand.
Maybe some of this makes sense.
Might take some flak for this, but I agree with everything you said completely, but don't really see you guys as a "core" company or at least moving away from being one.
This question was brought up in the infancy of the Revision fuckup thread. It stuck with me and I spent some time with it yesterday.
To be "core" is to contribute more to the sport and scene than you take away. The core offers stability. The core is the engine. The core is where actions and ideas originate.
If you can step back looking at the brand in question and determine that it nurtures more than it exploits, I would call it core.
I think that sustainability practices employed by the company should also be considered. Our sport is in a fairly precarious time, and although I dont think globalization is a necessarily a bad thing, the core company should have a local focus from manufacturing to distribution.
Core companies are companies that stay true to their roots and the skiing community. Examples of core companies are Atomic, Salomon, and Fischer.
Successful companies are companies that have grown very large, but they have the resources to supposedly make better skis. Examples of successful companies are Revision, TBK, and Batalla.
For me the line separating core and conglomerate is starting to blur. Anyway tho, core to me means a company that is owned by skiers and people who know the sport who know what skiers actually want. A few examples of core brands today would be Saga, Bloom, ON3P, Fat-ypus, and the list goes on
Conglomerates are brands that are owned by bigger, more powerful companies, and sadly sometimes the people running the business have never skied in their life. Although that isn't good, that doesn't mean your ski is going to be trash, it just means your money goes into a bigger scheme. A few examples would be K2, Armada, Solomon, TNF, and Line. I ski armada's myself, and even though the ski is not owned by skiers, the ski is still really good and solid
For me, a core company is one less focused on the commercial side of the business, and more about providing a means for people to get out and shred, In NZ we have two types of ski fields, the commercial and the club fields, the commercial are the ones that are there to make money, are run by a buisness, and market towards the general public, while the club fields are run by and for a club, often have much less money, but are their to facilitate the access to the snow, and market themselves to the more experienced skier. I guess the commercial fields market themselves as "resorts" and not mountains.
if they don't have the skiers needs and wants as their top priority, but rather the money, they are not core
that said, if you do it the right way, Core can make money. I'm sure that if the customers of a core brand started complaining about an aspect of the business, each of those complaints will be taken seriously. while a commercial brand will wait until enough complaints have built up that there is money to be made in the change.
It's kind of like in music, where as soon as people start to like your band you alienate all your original followers because they don't feel special anymore.
I'll just say I accidentally drove my truck through a car wash with a 20 year old da kine backpack in the bed that had my laptop in it, came out bone dry on the inside. If you build shit that is indestructible, you can be a core brand in my book because you understand what skiers need and you make it for them.
It's more about intention. If a company wants soley profit they're not really a core company. If they want to progress the industry for the better then they should probably be considered a core company.
Other core company traits:
Build/Make their own goods
Original
Care about consumer and their experience
(In my opinion) Ex.) ON3P, Virtika, HG Skis, Newschoolers (you can count it because they sell shirts, and stickers and stuff)
I would bet that if a lot of you visited the headquarters of brands you don't consider "core", you would find offices full of people that are insanely passionate about skiing, and you might change your mind. That could be a small brand all the way up to the largest brands available. Success and profit has nothing to do with selling out or losing being core. Core is the dumbest word in skiing.
